A reader writes:
The unintended consequence of Jull’s attempt to defend the 1988 work done by Arizona will be the opposite of what he hoped for. Yesterday’s questions become new again. Did the lab combine results as widely believed? Did the lab not report all of their measurements? Why hasn’t the lab, even after all these years, revealed all of the test results for each subsample?
What sample “split from one used” in 1988 are we talking about? How many other bits and pieces of shroud material does Arizona have tucked away? What really went on in Arizona?
This paper can do nothing but remind us of why the 1988 carbon dating of the shroud must be considered invalid. The evidence of cotton and dyestuff is overwhelming, Jull’s failure to find it not withstanding.